Lessons on reaching a divided audience in marketing and PR

It feels like an understatement to say we live in turbulent, fractious times. And while previously the 24 hour news cycle may seem to have focused on trivia, now it’s a case of blink and you’ll miss something important. For example, we’ve just seen the shortest ever stint as prime minister, with Liz Truss famously outlasted by a supermarket lettuce.

Image by Amy S from Pixabay

There’s also a growing divergence when it comes to how people react to news – any statement or announcement seems to attract equal parts admiration and condemnation. Even introducing new, more sustainable, packaging for Quality Street chocolates has people up in arms. And, on the subject of lettuce, I’ve just seen people complain about a tweet put out by Lidl piggybacking on the PM’s resignation saying they are “disgusted” at the supermarket “feeling the need to do politics.”

It feels that everyone is a target for someone and that often crowds, particularly on social media, rapidly become a baying mob. So as marketers and PR people should we just accept this and forget trying to influence those who may not have a positive (or informed) view of our brand or product? To me, that feels like a wasted opportunity – if we only focus on people that like us, how do you spread your message or grow your sales?

Taking a step back, I’ve been thinking about people and brands that are universally admired, and what marketers can learn from them. The obvious example is the late Queen – even those against the concept of the monarchy itself saw her as someone genuinely dedicated to her role and serving the people. So, what can we learn from her reign? I think it comes down to four things:

1          Build a reputation through your actions

Even in her later, frailer years the Queen had a full programme of activities, criss-crossing the country (and the globe) to lend her support and presence to communities and groups. She was solid, dependable, and always there, while still willing to show humour (such as her skydive with James Bond at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics). That reputation meant that when the royal family did face challenges (such as around Charles’ divorce or the behaviour of Prince Andrew), there was a well of support to draw on that kept overall reputation positive.

2          Cultivate an air of mystery

Famously, the monarch’s role is not to share their opinions on any contentious issue. This means not getting involved in fast-moving events and allows them to cultivate an air of mystery. Essentially, everyone could believe that the Queen was on their side, and shared similar opinions as she acted as a mirror to reflect back their own thoughts. 

3          Listen and respond

Despite the widespread picture of the Queen as an unchanging figurehead, she was open to making tough decisions when circumstances required. Take stripping Prince Andrew of his official titles or removing Prince Harry from the working royal family. These were not decisions made lightly or as a knee-jerk reaction, but considered responses taken after gauging the mood of the country and overall public opinion.

4          Be everywhere

Like most people, for me the Queen was an omnipresent part of my life, who was always there, even if you weren’t actively paying attention to what she was doing. Of course, it helps if your picture is on the stamps, bank notes and coins, but you don’t need to be a monarch to demonstrate dependability and take a place in everyone’s lives. I think this was the reason, above all, for the tremendous outpouring of grief seen when she died – she had made herself part of everyone’s lives and her death left a gap.

To head off any criticism I’m not a particular royalist and clearly no brand has the unique attributes and position of the Queen. However, there are definitely lessons that can be learnt and applied to how we all market and communicate. Or would you rather be a lettuce?

10 things I’ve learnt from a decade of running my own PR and marketing agency

It’s now ten years since I started my own PR and marketing agency and, even in the current circumstances, things continue to go from strength to strength. Pre-Brexit, pre-COVID, 2010 certainly seems like a long time ago, so I thought it would be a good time to write down some of what I’ve learnt over the last decade. And as I foolishly wrote a post entitled 5 things I’ve learnt in 5 years of running my own business in 2015, I’ve now got to up my game and come up with 10 lessons…………

Photo by Rakicevic Nenad on Pexels.com

1.Network, network, network

I’d estimate over 95% of my client business has come from referrals from people I’ve worked with in the past or personal recommendations. In fact, I can directly link a huge chunk of my revenues over the years to one contact and the people and companies she’s introduced me to. I’m not a pushy networker – this has all come from doing a good job for people, keeping in contact and never burning any bridges.

2. Pay it forward

When I started up lots of people gave up their time to help, from recommending what I needed to do on the admin side of running a business, to providing introductions or just listening. I’ve tried to do the same for people I meet starting up – hopefully I’ve been able to help, rather than hinder their growth!

3. It’s not a competition

Linked to being helpful is realising that PR and marketing is a big field when you are a freelance or a small agency. Clearly you have competition, but the likelihood of coming up against someone you know in a pitch is small. So being open and helping others won’t have an impact on your own success – and you’ll learn as much as (or more than) you give. And meeting with fellow practitioners is great for setting the world to rights and getting out of your own bubble.

4. Be agile

I started with a belief that I’d be offering PR services with a smattering of copywriting and a bit of social media. Ten years on I’m primarily providing marketing consultancy in its broadest sense, with creating content the biggest part of what I do. Obviously do what you are comfortable with, but be flexible, particularly with smaller clients and tailor what you are doing to their actual objectives.

5. Be brave

Setting up your own agency is a risk, but it delivers incredible satisfaction and rewards. While we all need to bring in revenues (have you seen how much three teenage boys can eat in a day?), be prepared to say no to clients you don’t feel comfortable working with. Or, if you have to keep them on for financial reasons in the short-term, look for alternatives that you can replace them with down the line.

6. Be prepared to continually learn

As I said what I do has changed dramatically and it has meant learning new skills and brushing up old ones. Ensure that you are continually learning, both to ensure you stay relevant and to keep yourself sharp and on top of new ideas.

7. Don’t be an idiot

Or, as Joe Glover of the Marketing Meetup puts it “Be positively lovely.” Bear in mind that everyone you meet could be a potential client or help you in some way and treat them with respect and give them time.  You’ll feel better about yourself and it could help you in the future too.

8. Learn to let go

Something I find difficult to do, but make sure you switch off from work and recharge your batteries. It isn’t easy, particularly if you are based from home and have a smartphone pinging every time a new email arrives. Develop coping strategies – whether that’s going for a run, spending time with your family or taking the dog for a long walk.

9. Be creative

It’s easy to get stuck in a rut, doing the same thing you’ve always done, in the same way you’ve always done it. Like learning new skills, take the time to approach problems from new directions or solve them in different ways. Share and brainstorm issues with people you trust to get their perspective and spark new ideas.

10. Don’t try and do everything yourself

There’s a huge range of support services out there, from marketing and PR software to really good accountants and advisers. Outsource what you can to other experts – bear in mind that you only have a limited amount of time in the day, and in many cases others can do tasks much faster, more cost-effectively and just plain better than you.

Ten years of work equates to over 57,000 hours of hard graft, which is a sobering thought. I’d never have been able to get this far without the support of countless people over the decade – thanks for all your help and here’s to the next decade.

PR and the election – living in interesting times

Given I’m writing this post a couple of days before the UK General Election, there are clearly risks that I’ll both annoy everyone who is already fed up with the campaign, and end up with egg on my face through predictions that turn out to be completely wrong.

Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

So, I’ll sit on the fence when it comes to the result, and instead look at the public relations around the election itself. In my view there are four interesting topics and trends:

1. Everyone wants to talk about ‘their’ issue

Just as Teresa May (remember her?) spent the last election chanting that the Tories would bring ‘strong and stable’ government, this time around the two main parties are focusing on one key issue above all. For the Tories it is ‘getting Brexit done’ whereas for Labour it is all about austerity in general, and the NHS in particular. Every opportunity is brought back to these key topics, whatever the start point of the question.

2. No-one wants to talk about their leaders

Without being party political it is clear that both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn are divisive figures. Their handlers have therefore tried to be careful about when and where they appear in public and in front of the media. Even the leaders themselves have admitted they may be an issue, with Jeremy Corbyn (and multiple Labour candidates) pointing out that this is not a presidential campaign, and voters are choosing their local MP, not the Prime Minister. This may be true technically, but it is also a trifle disingenuous. Nevertheless, in all the election leaflets I’ve had I don’t think any (except the solitary missive from the Liberal Democrats) had a picture or endorsement from the party leader.

3. No-one knows what’s happening

We’ve had predictions from a whopping Tory majority to a hung parliament and the truth is, thanks to the first past the post system and the focus on every step (and misstep) of the parties, it would be a brave person who said the election was over before the votes were counted. Add in tactical voting and you can see why all parties are still pushing hard, with leaders criss-crossing the country and new policies appearing seemingly out of thin air. In my (extremely safe) Tory constituency I’ve not seen a single candidate on the doorstep, but have had lots of leaflets telling me what a good job my MP is doing. And this is despite the fact that it would take an electoral upset of gargantuan proportions to stop the area remaining blue.

4. Online is a key battleground

The traditional left/right division between Labour and the Conservatives has been turned on its head by Brexit. Hence Boris Johnson spending time wooing the leave-voting constituents of Northern seats. This also means that whereas in the past people might have been within a social media bubble of those with the same opinions, this time it isn’t necessarily the case. Hence the push to use online channels by all parties to reach and convince voters – at least £2 million has been spent on social media advertising up until now. And this is likely to grow – traditionally donations to parties ramp up towards the end of campaigns. Given that physical media such as billboards and newspaper adverts are either already booked up or cannot be created in time, the majority of this extra cash will be spent on targeted online ads.

5. Campaigns are not being legal, honest, decent and true

From the first leader’s debate, when Tory Central Office turned its Twitter handle into a supposed fact-checking resource, underhand tactics have been rife. Independent body the Coalition for Reform in Political Advertising has highlighted that at least 31 campaigns from parties across the political spectrum have been indecent, dishonest or untruthful. This is probably a by-product of the generally chaotic nature of the campaign, and the rise of online, which makes it easier to quickly launch ads or claims without necessarily worrying about the consequences.

What can we learn from these points? Sadly, that whatever the result, such tactics are probably here to stay. So given the overall political landscape, I expect I’ll be writing a new version of this blog well within the supposed five year life of the next parliament….

6 areas every PR brief should cover

I recently saw a tweet from Mark Lowe of Third City stressing the importance of companies providing a budget when they are looking for a PR agency. I’d agree in most instances, particularly when omitting one is basically down to laziness. However, there are times when companies and marketers genuinely need help and guidance on what they should be spending, particularly in the early stage of a business.

Mark’s tweet made me think of some of the other things that companies routinely fail to include when briefing a potential PR agency or creating Requests for Proposal. We’ve all had briefs as basic/non-existent as “get us some press coverage” or “write us some press releases” and you can learn to recognise and avoid this type of company – after all, if they don’t know what they want now, it’s unlikely things will improve down the line.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Given that, and without trying to teach clients to suck eggs, here are the top six things I think every brief should include:

1.Business objectives
What is the organisation trying to achieve overall? Does it want more customers, to enter new markets or to retain the clients it already has? Is there an exit planned, and if so, what is it? In this case PR can be a really powerful method of attracting the right attention from the right potential purchasers – but only if the PR agency knows what the end game actually is. Be honest and you’ll get the best fit for your needs.

2.Marketing objectives
What are the marketing objectives and how do they support the overall business? What other activities are planned and how can PR piggyback/complement them? We’re in an increasingly joined-up world and any clued-up PR person should be able to demonstrate how they can support overall marketing and therefore maximise results (and budgets).

3.Who is your competition?
If a prospect says they have no competition I’m immediately suspicious. Is that because there is no market for what they do – or because the prospect has no idea what is actually happening in the sector? Outline clearly the type of business you come up against and your differentiators. At the very least this will help prospective PR agencies to see what the competition is doing PR wise and use this insight to create a strategy that out performs them.

4.What is your timeline?
This covers both the pitch process and overall expectations about when results will start to meaningfully impact the business. I know everyone is busy, and a PR tender process is normally run on top of full-time jobs, but try and give a reasonable idea of when agencies can expect a response to their proposal. For a start it will stop them hounding you with calls and emails asking how things are going.

PR doesn’t always deliver immediate results, so you need to be sure that you are realistic about your timeline here – and that the expectations of everyone in the company are well-managed. You’re not going to get straight onto the front page of a national newspaper or to immediately arrange a meeting with a key influencer.

5.Don’t forget measurement
What does success actually look like? Either give enough information for agencies to come up with measurement metrics of their own, or share your own with them, and make them as close to your business goals as possible. If you need external measurement then make sure that’s covered in the budget too.

6.What do you actually want?
It is always a good idea to think through what you want from an agency. Should it be small or large? Specialist or generalist? On your doorstep or is distance not an object? Able to expand into marketing if required? Take the time to meet prospective agencies to ensure that the chemistry works for both sides – and be firm that you want to talk to the actual team who would work on the account, not just an account director you’ll only see every quarter.

Set criteria for how you will judge the agency, particularly in a pitch situation with multiple people involved in the decision. By using a scoring framework you can take some of the emotion out of your choice and avoid too many internal disagreements over the pitch process.

While I’ve detailed six things that I believe that PR briefs should contain, I’m sure this isn’t exhaustive. Do chip in on the comments section with your suggestions – and marketers share your thoughts on what infuriates you about agencies during the pitch process too………….

6 differences between PR and marketing

After one of my previous posts on what public relations can (and can’t do), Ann Hawkins of Drive suggested exploring what the differences are between PR and marketing, leading to this article. To begin with, it is important to stress that PR is a marketing discipline, alongside the likes of advertising, direct mail, brochures and digital. So there is inevitably overlap.

As Ann rightly points out this overlap has increased over the last few years, as marketing disciplines have coalesced, but there are still differences between PR and other areas.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Here are what I think the six main ones are:

1.PR is less guaranteed
Any marketing campaign can fail, with even the biggest of advertising campaigns coming a cropper. This could be down to poor planning, inadequate targeting or simply not having a strong enough creative idea. However, even the most unsuccessful marketing campaign will have a very visible outputs, whether that is a website, a piece of direct mail, or an enormously expensive TV ad. The outputs of PR appear much less substantial – a press release, a conversation with a journalist or influencer, or an email to a stakeholder. So if the campaign fails there is much less to show for it. You don’t have the 10 foot advertising poster to impress the CEO with. PR is much more of an iceberg – there’s a huge amount of work behind the scenes to get a campaign up and running, and much less guarantee that it will succeed. PR is not just media relations, but I’ve been in the position of having a journalist write a piece which was dropped from a national newspaper as the news agenda changed and there simply wasn’t space.

2. PR is (or used to be) less measurable
Historically, one major difference between PR and marketing was that most marketing campaigns could easily be measured, whether in terms of leads, sales or other outcomes, unlike PR. This is one area where PR has changed dramatically over the last few years. When I started in PR 25 years ago, measurement was calculated on the physical coverage you received, using Advertising Value Equivalents (AVEs). Full page article? Find out how much buying the same ad space would cost, multiply it by three (as PR is much more credible than an ad), and you have an impressive figure that shows ROI.

Thankfully, things have moved on, with much greater professionalism. Digital technology enables specific tracking of where people go to after reading an online article for example, and it is now much easier to measure outcomes, not just outputs.

3. PR often involves a gatekeeper
Marketing campaigns normally directly target the audience they are trying to influence. For example, you want people to watch an ad and buy your washing powder or click to sign up to join a service online. In contrast PR is more likely to reach the audience indirectly, through a gatekeeper. This could be journalists/publications in the case of media relations, or other stakeholders such as analysts, consultants or other influencers. So, you need to create a message that not only resonates with the final audience, but also convinces the gatekeeper as well.

4. Marketing is trying to drive direct revenue
According to a post on a PR company’s website, marketing is always linked to revenue goals, while PR is about reputation. To be honest, I’d only partially agree. Some PR is about boosting your reputation, but it has always been about driving leads as well. For example, if you launch a new product press coverage is a crucial part of not just creating awareness but getting people into the sales funnel. However, it is true to say that marketing campaigns tend to be more linked to sales goals, whereas PR can be much wider in its results and targets.

5. PR is more credible
To me, this remains the most important difference between marketing and PR. Even (or especially) in an age of fake news and widespread disinformation, the outputs of PR, such as media coverage are seen as more credible than an advert. This is because it has passed through a gatekeeper meaning it has been verified by a hopefully independent third party before reaching its audience. Yes, there have been plenty of examples of PR being used to support dubious causes or campaigns (take the work of Bell Pottinger in South Africa), but those that clearly cross an ethical line or have no basis in fact are normally discovered and called out. In the case of Bell Pottinger, the resulting scandal brought the whole company down.

6. PR isn’t always visible
One of the key aims of public relations is managing reputation. While this can be a relatively straightforward job of aiming to build a positive profile with key audiences, it also covers crisis management, mitigating (or even avoiding altogether) negative stories. I appreciate that this sounds dubious, and I’m not advocating PR being used to keep bad stuff out of the media. However, we live in a more and more complex world, where it is more common for things to go wrong in some way. Having a crisis management PR strategy is therefore crucial if brands are to react to minimise any reputational damage. That’s something that you can’t really do with other marketing disciplines, although the likes of VW and Facebook have tried, taking out full page adverts explaining how sorry they are for various corporate misdemeanours.

I’m conscious that while I set out to outline clear differences between PR and marketing I’ve ended up with a fair few caveats that show that different disciplines are getting closer in many areas. That’s actually a positive for PR, as it shows how its reach is spreading, not just in marketing but other areas (such as internal communications) and demonstrates its business value. No marketing campaign (or company) can afford to neglect PR, whatever its overall objectives.

Nick Clegg – the worst job in PR?

There are lots of jobs in public relations that could best be described as ‘challenging’ – and at worst be considered nightmares to avoid at all costs. Press secretary to Donald Trump or Elon Musk’s PR handler both spring to mind. However, these revolve around trying to control a wayward individual known for having their own communications style. In these cases the PR issues come with the territory as they are part of the brand.

So what are the worst jobs in PR when you take the figurehead out of the equation? I’d say that at the moment they revolve around Brexit and Facebook. I won’t go into Theresa May’s communications strategy as I’m not sure there is one beyond repeating the same stock phrases over and over again and hoping that the world will change.

Instead I’m going to focus this post on the challenges facing Facebook’s PR team, and in particular Sir Nick Clegg, the company’s recently appointed head of global affairs. First, a quick recap of the issues in his intray:

• The Cambridge Analytica case, where data was illegally collected and used to target Facebook users
• Failure to regulate fake news or Russian interference in the US election
• Allowing posts that promoted genocide against the Rohinga minority in Myanmar
• Automatically recommending content involving self-harm to vulnerable teens on Instagram
• Not paying its fair share of tax

I’m probably missing a few – suffice it to say that in PR Moment’s annual review of 2018’s PR disasters, Facebook was villain of the month on three separate occasions, well ahead of any other business.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

What hasn’t helped has been its ‘solution’, which seems to amount to taking out a lot of adverts and whingeing a bit about it being so unfair (being 15 the company is going through a sulky teenager phase).

Oh, and hiring Nick Clegg. Obviously Clegg had a background in public affairs before he entered politics, so the combination of his experience seems like a good fit. But since he joined little has really changed. There’s still a refusal to engage with politicians – Mark Zuckerberg has dodged requests to appear in front of politicians, apart from one hearing of the US Congress. And all the time revenues have been increasing, adding fuel to the allegations that the company puts profits above doing the right thing.

Clegg’s job is not one I’d relish as clearly Facebook needs to undergo a root and branch reform to make it more open and accountable. And the clock is ticking – murmurs of breaking the company up in some way are growing, with splitting the different services it offers (Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp) into separate entities, providing what looks like an easy solution to lawmakers.

I’ve previously outlined what I think Facebook needs to do, along with other tech companies, to turn around its reputation, focusing on openness, confessing to past wrong doing, investing and matching words with deeds. Essentially Facebook needs to engage and that means communicating in a more human way – for its sake let’s hope that Nick Clegg is given the space and resources to deliver real change, rather than propping up the status quo.

4 ways that tech giants can turn their image around in 2019

Its fair to say that tech giants had a shocker PR-wise in 2018. Vilified for how they treat consumer data, spread malicious/fake news, fail to protect privacy, low tax payments and underhand PR methods (as in the case of Facebook hiring a firm to spread dirt on George Soros), they’ve so far come up with a poor defence. In fact, senior management has either ducked out of governmental hearings or spouted platitudes that placated no-one.

Photo by freestocks.org from Pexels

And the early indications are that 2019 will be equally challenging for the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon, as they are publicly attacked on multiple fronts. Countries such as the UK and France are proposing ‘tech taxes’ to claw back money, while competition authorities are taking a keen interest in the idea that these organisations have too much power and need to have their wings clipped. It seems a long time ago that they were hailed as innovators changing the world by connecting people in new ways and providing easy access to untold information and opportunities.

So, what should the tech giants New Year PR resolutions be? Here are four to start with:

1.Confess
One of the biggest issues facing Facebook et al is that they are taking an overly legalistic approach to dealing with their problems. Essentially, they are denying everything with the aim of protecting themselves from potentially eye-watering fines. As the growing number of legal cases show, this isn’t working as the public mood has very much turned against them. It isn’t an easy step, but they have to change their attitude, confess to past misdemeanours (even if inadvertent) and wipe the slate clean. Think Lance Armstrong on Oprah, but with Mark Zuckerberg replacing the drug-taking cyclist.

2.Match words with deeds
We’ve all seen the adverts from social networks telling us that they are committed to protecting our privacy and online lives. They need to go further, and change how they operate, such as making default privacy settings much tighter and being clearer on the code of conduct that they will follow, with proper independent oversight.

3.Be more open
Ironically for organisations that rely on people being free and open with their most personal data, Google, Facebook and Amazon are extremely secretive in many areas. Clearly, no one expects them to give away commercial advantage, but they need to show how they operate to satisfy regulators, consumers and current and potential employees. By demonstrating that openness they will show they’ve not got a secret agenda and that Mark Zuckerberg is not a lizard.

4.Invest
The rise of Google and Facebook has hoovered up huge amounts of advertising spend, particularly affecting local and regional newspapers. Alongside the reports of cats stuck up trees, these provide a powerful method of supporting local democracy, holding elected councils to account. Investigating vested interests costs money, and national newspapers have also seen budgets slashed, despite the importance of exposing malfeasance. At the same time, Amazon has led an ecommerce boom that has decimated the high street, again hitting communities across the UK. While there’s no legal obligation to pay for these problems, it is time for tech giants to dip into their pockets. Google already funds some media initiatives and Facebook invests in local journalism, but they all need to go further if this is to redress the balance. Paying a fair share of their tax bill would also help.

Clearly not every tech company is in the same position as Facebook, Google, Amazon and Uber, but the current ‘techlash’ threatens the entire industry. This isn’t just about perception or slowing user growth – share prices have fallen as nervous investors cash out, while many talented employees are looking elsewhere for their careers. 2019 promises to be a watershed year for tech’s public image – lucky that Facebook has got Nick Clegg on board to turn it all around……….

Taking a stand – and the risks to brand reputation

Brands today face significant challenges when it comes to marketing themselves. Competition is growing, particularly from smaller, nimbler and often cooler players. We also live in an increasingly polarised world, where consumers demand that the brands they engage with stand for something. That’s relatively easy for quirky startups – the trouble for established multinationals is that ‘something’ varies radically between different groups and cuts across their existing customer demographics.

The current debate over Nike’s latest marketing campaign demonstrates this perfectly. It has recruited American footballer Colin Kaepernick to narrate its new ad, which features athletes from a range of backgrounds who have overcome adversity to achieve success. The slogan, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”, sums up Kaepernick’s role as leader of the movement to kneel during the US national anthem to protest against police violence.

Photo by Rafael on Pexels.com

Burning rubber
Predictably, the campaign has drawn ire from both sides. Photos and videos of people burning their Nike shoes and clothes went viral on social media, and the Nike stock price initially dropped. Donald Trump complained on Twitter. The body responsible for buying uniforms for the Mississippi police force announced that it would now longer purchase Nike products. At the same time, commentators have complained that Nike is simply hijacking a key issue to essentially sell more trainers. And given their previous poor record on issues such as ethical sourcing, child labour and more recently complaints of a culture of sexual harassment, people may well have a point.

Nevertheless, Nike clearly feels that its core buyers are going to respond positively to its position. In a similar vein, the CEO of Levi’s announced a partnership with gun violence prevention groups, causing the National Rifle Association to complain about “corporate virtue-signalling.” On this side of the Atlantic, Lush had to drop a campaign focused on undercover police who infiltrated activist groups to spy on their members.

So how can brands make sure that taking a stand doesn’t alienate the people they want to appeal to? Essentially it comes down to answering four key questions:

1.Does it fit with your brand values?
One of the reasons Lush received so many complaints was that its campaign didn’t fit with its brand values. Yes, it was seen as alternative and studenty, but being seen to attack the police was a step too far. Companies need to live their brand values – but not over-extend them in pursuit of cheap headlines, as it will damage their reputation.

2. Does it fit with your target audience?
For Nike, its core audience is overwhelming young, urban and involved. Therefore, while it might lose some sales (will Donald Trump switch to Yeezys?), they are clearly confident that the positive impact outweighs the negative. In the same way, UK stationery chain Paperchase pulled promotions from the Daily Mail after its customers complained about the difference between the paper’s editorial stance and their own views. So start with demographics and listening to your customers – after all, there’s a world of social media to help you hear their voice.

3. Are you seen as genuine?
For me, this is where Nike falls down, though it isn’t as bad as Pepsi’s infamous Kendall Jenner advert. I simply can’t see them as genuinely believing in the issues raised – and their own record on worker’s rights undermines their case for promoting fairness. Obviously this is an issue for any major corporation as most have skeletons in their closet of some sort. However, in contrast, Levi’s campaign on gun control looks much more genuine as their CEO is an ex-US army captain who has spoken out on the issue before.

4. Is it cohesive?
If you take a stand, it has to run across your business. You can’t complain about police brutality and then treat your own employees poorly, for example. That’s one of the reasons that tech giants such as Facebook and Amazon are currently in trouble. They talk about an innovative future based on technology and openness, and then create labyrinthine corporate structures to minimise the tax they pay and (in the case of Amazon) face accusations of sweatshop conditions for their warehouse staff. In today’s world failing to live your brand will be quickly discovered and publicised.

We’re in a position where more and more brands are being forced to make a choice – Trump or Democrat, Leave or Remain

? To do this successfully is a balancing act – but starting from genuine brand values built on trust with your audience is a key starting point.

 

Brand safety in the age of Trump

Marketers are all aware of the impact of social media on brand reputation. Issues can quickly go viral as consumers share complaints on Facebook and Twitter – and with the press continually monitoring for social stories, before you know it you are on the BBC News or the front page of a newspaper website.

Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com

However, what has changed in the last twelve months or so has been the impact of celebrities, including Donald Trump, on brand safety. A tweet from the US President complaining about a company can damage reputation, and even survival. Take the case of Chinese telecoms equipment maker ZTE. Convicted of breaching US sanctions on Iran and North Korea, the company first looked doomed to go out of business when it was banned from buying US components, and was then resurrected through a supportive tweet from Trump.

All a bit Thameslink
It isn’t just Trump – a tweet from author Eric Van Lustbader about food poisoning at a branch of US restaurant chain Chipotle (already reeling from an e.coli outbreak), caused its stock to fall. And in the UK, rail company Thameslink was threatened with legal action from Poundland for comparing its poor service to ‘Poundland cooking chocolate’. The retailer added that it if it ever fell short on customer service, they’d describe themselves as ‘a bit Thameslink’.

What the Poundland experience shows is that brands are now fighting back against what they see as unfair attacks. Nowhere was this more visible than in the Roseanne Barr case, where the TV star blamed sleeping pill Ambien for her racist tweets. Cue its maker Sanofi to respond (brilliantly) “While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.”

Whereas in the past they may have ignored social media mentions or only responded weeks later, brands are now wising up to the protecting their online reputation. However, I think they need to balance speed with the following three factors:

1.Be polite and engaging
It would have been very easy for multibillion dollar drug company Sanofi to respond to Roseanne with a dry legal statement or to launch an attack of its own. Instead, it balanced politeness with cutting wit, simultaneously undermining her point and demonstrating its good corporate citizenship.

2.Don’t get personal
When a celebrity, particularly one with millions of followers, tweets about you it is easy for things to descend into a personal slanging match that actually further damages your brand. Try and take the moral high ground, state the facts and think before you tweet. After all, there are likely to be brand advocates who will defend you aggressively, letting you focus on your key messages.

3.Take a joke
Brand safety isn’t about jumping on every negative, throwaway mention of your company and overreacting/threatening legal action. Decide what is important, what can be handled by a simple denial, and where it makes more sense for your brand to play along and show that you have a sense of humour.

The past few weeks have shown that marketers are now taking positive steps to protect brand reputation online – they clearly have the monitoring systems in place to intervene early, but they need to make sure they don’t become too corporate if they are to actually enhance their reputations rather than adding to online damage through ill-thought out responses.

World Cup marketing – is it worth it?

 

With the domestic football season nearly finished (though, as an Ipswich Town fan, it has felt over for a long time), attention is turning to the World Cup. While the hosts Russia don’t kick off the first match against Saudi Arabia until 14^th June, brands are already launching their campaigns and trying to grab a piece of the action.

Yet, they face some significant marketing challenges:

1. Location
Relations between Russia and the west are at a post-Cold War low, and there will be no high profile attendees from the UK government or royal family following the Salisbury poisoning. And, given the reputation of Russian hooligans (as seen at the last European Championships) and the vast distances involved in attending matches, only the most dedicated fans are likely to spend their cash to follow England.

2. Local colour
As several marketing gurus have pointed out, what makes a major sporting event like a World Cup is the local colour. This meant sponsors spent a great deal of time and effort linking themselves to Brazil for the Olympics/World Cup, adopting local imagery and using that to market their brands. Think shots of brands in front of palm trees, beaches or the statue of Christ the Redeemer. Given Russia’s reputation this is going to be more difficult – photos of your brand outside the Kremlin don’t have the same positive connotations. Therefore, most brands are going to focus on the football itself, which leaves them open to the vagaries of how teams actually play.

3. Competition
There are bewildering number of ways to become a sponsor involved in the World Cup. At the top end there are official FIFA partners (the likes of Visa, Hyundai, Coca-Cola and Gazprom), then World Cup sponsors and Regional partners. Each team has its own sponsors, and individual players have their own endorsements. Add in those brands that then try and sneak on board with ambush marketing, and the field looks very crowded indeed.

4. Picking the right horse
Given the costs involved it might therefore seem cost-effective to base your marketing around a particular player. But you have to be prepared if things go wrong – what happens if he fails to hit form, gets injured and doesn’t even play or is sent off? The perfect example of this was when Ireland captain Roy Keane was sent home from the 2002 World Cup after a bust-up with manager Mick McCarthy, before a ball was even kicked. Pity the Irish sponsors that had based their whole campaigns around Keane………

5. Social media makes everyone an expert
We’re all aware of media fragmentation and that the days of following a World Cup solely on TV and through daily newspapers are long gone. The internet and social media now means that everyone can share their views and comment on not just the matches, but your marketing campaigns. In our hypersensitive age, expect people to pick faults in your approach, or even to complain about any involvement in a tournament held in Putin’s Russia. All it takes is a slip of the mouse or an unfortunate turn of phrase and you’ll be facing a potential boycott – particularly if the on-field action isn’t that exciting.

After all this it would be easy to ask why sponsors bother. But the World Cup is one of the largest global sporting events, attracting millions, if not billions, of viewers. Get it right, and you’ll link yourself to sporting success, meaning you’ll be loved and admired by your audience – but remember that, as pundits frequently say, football is a funny old game………